header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unlawful employment tribunal fees to be paid back

The government is to pay back all employment tribunal fees—ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in July—along with 0.5% interest.

It will be paid in stages. In the first stage, the government will contact about 1,000 people who have applied for refunds concerning single claims. The scheme will be opened up four weeks later to everyone else who paid fees.

Those who paid fees can register online at ethelpwithfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or by post at Employment Tribunal Central Office (England and Wales)/Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Fees, PO Box 10218, Leicester LE1 8EG.

The government said it is also working with trade unions who have supported large multiple claims potentially involving hundreds of claimants.

Trade union Unison won a historic victory in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, with seven Justices unanimously holding that the government acted unlawfully in introducing fees ranging from £160 to £230 or £950 for further hearings, and as much as £1,200 for certain claims, in July 2013.

Employment lawyers have been expectantly waiting to see how the government would go about paying back the fees. They have highlighted how, while some people paid the unlawful fees, others will have been deterred from bringing their claims.

Unison head of legal services Adam Creme said: ‘The government is now making good on its promise to refund anyone who was unfairly charged to take their employers to court.

‘The government got it very wrong on fees, as ministers found to their cost when they lost at the Supreme Court in the summer. But the real tragedy of the fees fiasco is the thousands of wronged employees who couldn’t afford to shell out to get justice and so lost out. Nothing can be done to help them, or to bring the many unscrupulous employers, who broke the law and got away with it, to court.’

The government has said, in response to a Parliamentary question, that the estimated cost of refunding the fees is £33m.

Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll